"Monkey Trial"

[freako104]

Not really. Look one above yours

I did. I havent seen the Lutheran church sport anything like that. It has however gained more of an open idea about religion and science

 

[Thulsa Doom]

Honestly, Thulsa, I think that most scientists would find that a complete waste of time. They don't care what other people believe, that's the purview of religion. I argue the point all the time, but frankly don't care whether anyone else accepts it or not. I just enjoy the argument (well, up to the name calling point anyway).

Oh Id actually be disappointed if scientists actually did anything like that thus reducing themselves to the level of the creationists. Im just threw it out there for the obvious comparison value since the answer is obviously no. and nothing wrong with name calling you unbelieving heathen swine. may you burn for all eternity in a place that hasnt been proven to exist!

 

[Gotholic]

Re: "Monkey Trail"

What country's constitution would that be?

The United States of America.

I thought it was common knowledge that it was unconstitutional. Here is the proof:

The United States Supreme Court has held that it is unconstitutional to require educators who teach evolution also to teach creationism. [Aguillard v. Edwards, 765 F. 2d 1251 (5th Cir.), aff'd, 482 U. S. 578 (1987)]

The teaching of creationism as a differing and alternative point of view may not be taught as a response to the theory of evolution. [McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F. Supp. 1255 (E. D. Ark. 1982) (cited favorably in Aguillard, 482 U. S. 578)]

Vocal denominational or nondenominational prayer, and ceremonial reading from the Bible, are unconstitutional practices in the public school classroom. [School Dist. of Abington Township, Pa. v. Schempp, 374 U. S. 203 (1963); Engel v. Vitale, 370 U. S. 421 (1962)]

No, but it is clearly implied when it is stated that, "no religious test shall ever be required, as a qualification to any office or public trust, under the United States." Further, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It's sad how many people there are that are ready to play semantic games with freedom, isn't it?

There is nothing that says the government can not acknowledge God.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This means that the federal government could not declare a National Church Denomination (like the King of England did with the Episcopal denomination).

BTW, are you in any way aware of who actually won the Scopes trial?

It was only a superficial victory for the Creationist side. The Evolutionists won their objective. Bryan did not do a great job defending the faith.

BTW, are you in any way aware of the definition of irony.

I'm quite aware. But are you?

www.dictionary.com

i·ron·ic

Poignantly contrary to what was expected or intended: madness, an ironic fate for such a clear thinker.

The irony is that the constitution has been misinterpreted for what was intended on regards towards religion. Hence, what was once granted is now denied...

 

[freako104]

No law respecting an establishment of religion to me says there is a separation. Nowhere though does it say there isnt a right to observe religion or practice it.

 

[Gonz]

What seperation? It says that gov't may not create a national (official) religion. It also explicitly says that there shall be no law that prohibits religion.

 

[freako104]

No law respecting an establishment of religion

besides its up for debate. some say yes some no. its not in black and white but I thnk its implied right there

 

[Gonz]

It's not in B&W...in on parchment , long hand, from a quill pen. It exactly says

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There really isn't much to debate. The issue of religion in America was made clear from day one. Nowhere in the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights or even the Declaration is there even a hint resembling a statement like "You have the right not to be offended". If you don't believe, fine, tune out the nonsense. If you believe, fine, listen to it. Why is that so hard to do?

 

[Winky]

I always label those who attempt to inject ambiguity
into this part of our Constitution one of either two ways.

Dumbasses or communists

If we fall into peril of a Muslim Theocracy taking over,
the Federal government and instituting Sharia Law then
start yer whining, until then STFU aboot it.

 

[chcr]

It is quite ironic how things turned around since 1925. Since it is now unconstitutional to teach Creation or have prayers in public schools.

i·ron·ic

Poignantly contrary to what was expected or intended: madness, an ironic fate for such a clear thinker.

Okay, now let's see. First it is in no way unconstitutional to teach creation or to have prayer in public schools. It never has been. I think it should be, but that's an opinion. I understand that they don't change the constitution for one person's opinion (although I'm not sure some people don't want to change that). Second, Scopes was found guilty of breaking a state law prohibiting the teaching of evolution. He was duly fined and went on about his business. I'll remind you that the Supreme Court also found in their favor. The debate over the teaching of evolution vs. creation (or even both) clearly predates the trial (they'd already made a state law about it, you understand) and has continued unabated since. While it was and evidently is good press, said debate was unaffected. Nothing ironic anywhere to be found. I therefore must conclude that while you have read the definition of irony, you have clearly not understood it. The subsequent popularization of evolution is a natural progression of the improvement of the public school system from that time through the mid-eighties, just as the current plague of inability of young people to think clearly and rationally is a result of the degradation of that same system in the intervening years.

Edit: Illustration that I heard once (on television, of all places) : It's not even ironic that you don't understand irony, it's just unfortunate.

 

[chcr]

Okay, now let's see. First it is in no way unconstitutional to teach creation or to have prayer in public schools. It never has been. I think it should be, but that's an opinion.

Oops. Allow me to clarify. I think it should be unconstitutional to teach creation as a valid scientific theory in publicly run schools. I think it should be (and by my interpretation it is) to have either "required" prayer or prayer led by school staff. Sorry, I misspoke.

 

[Gotholic]

Okay, now let's see. First it is in no way unconstitutional to teach creation or to have prayer in public schools. It never has been. I think it should be, but that's an opinion.

I'm not sure why you just don't get it. The United States Supreme Court has the power to interpret the Constitution. Therefore, it has been found that it is unconstitutional to teach Creationism and have prayers in public schools. I have already given the court cases that support this.

The U.S. Constitution never intended to block religious activity within the schools, hence, the irony. Get it?

I understand that they don't change the constitution for one person's opinion (although I'm not sure some people don't want to change that). Second, Scopes was found guilty of breaking a state law prohibiting the teaching of evolution. He was duly fined and went on about his business.

I know that. I did not contend this.

I'll remind you that the Supreme Court also found in their favor.

The Tennessee Supreme Court overturned the decision on appeal due to a technical issue: The jury should have decided the fine, not the judge...

 

[chcr]

*sigh* Read those court cases (and the subsequent ones) again. I don't have the time, patience or inclination to help you unlearn all the history you so blithely misunderstand.

Ask yourself this: If it's unconstitutional to teach creation in public schools (which I am sad to have to point out our controlled by the state and not the federal government), how can so many of them do it?

unconstitutional to require educators who teach evolution also to teach creationism

You even misinterpret your own posts, but I'll admit you're not the only one.

 

[freako104]

It's not in B&W...in on parchment , long hand, from a quill pen. It exactly says


There really isn't much to debate. The issue of religion in America was made clear from day one. Nowhere in the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights or even the Declaration is there even a hint resembling a statement like "You have the right not to be offended". If you don't believe, fine, tune out the nonsense. If you believe, fine, listen to it. Why is that so hard to do?

noone said anything about being offended. But the govt cannot endorse religion.

 

[chcr]

noone said anything about being offended. But the govt cannot endorse religion.

In fact, freako, they do.

 

[freako104]

yes I know. but I was saying I think there is a separation. they arent supposed to but they do.

 

[Gotholic]

*sigh* Read those court cases (and the subsequent ones) again. I don't have the time, patience or inclination to help you unlearn all the history you so blithely misunderstand.

What a nice way to dismiss those court cases! I suggest you read them again.

Ask yourself this: If it's unconstitutional to teach creation in public schools (which I am sad to have to point out our controlled by the state and not the federal government), how can so many of them do it?

Because religious theories of creation may be included in classes on comparative religion as an example of how some religious groups believe human life began. However, creationism may never be taught as scientific fact in public schools.

But don't get me wrong. Teaching Creation has been repressed by the school system anyways.

You even misinterpret your own posts, but I'll admit you're not the only one.

I have not misinterpreted anything, so let me clarify: Educators may not teach, either as scientific fact or even as an alternative or competing theory, the theory that humankind was created by a divine being. In science classes, educators must present only scientific explanations for life on earth and scientific critiques of evolution...

BTW: I do not appreciate your condescending attitude...

 

[RDX]

In fact, freako, they do.

Ah yes. This is the dilemma that our founders had when they set up this country. They realized that the country needed leaders with morals to be a successful and long lasting. On the other hand, they also realized that if a nation endorsed a certain religion, it often led to the repression of others (including atheism). Subsequently they set up the government in such a way as to encourage religion (in chiefly a Christian context, as that was the predominant religion of the day), but not to go so far as to establish a national religion (or of more concern at the time, a national denomination). Thus, we have a seemingly mixed message in early documents that often use words like God, creator, or even directly quote from the Bible, but then clearly state that there should not be an establishment of a national religion or denomination by the state.

 

[Gonz]

Smart mo-fo's, huh? How many times is Jesus spoken of, in a political sense? I've forgotten. Same with other, less generic interpretatins like Allah or Jehovah or Budddah.

 

[chcr]

Ah yes. This is the dilemma that our founders had when they set up this country. They realized that the country needed leaders with morals to be a successful and long lasting. On the other hand, they also realized that if a nation endorsed a certain religion, it often led to the repression of others (including atheism). Subsequently they set up the government in such a way as to encourage religion (in chiefly a Christian context, as that was the predominant religion of the day), but not to go so far as to establish a national religion (or of more concern at the time, a national denomination). Thus, we have a seemingly mixed message in early documents that often use words like God, creator, or even directly quote from the Bible, but then clearly state that there should not be an establishment of a national religion or denomination by the state.

See, now I don't find the message mixed at all. Of course the founders of our country would use predominantly christian values, with the exception of Jefferson they were all christians. The only thing they were trying to prevent is religious oppression, which was in fact why many of the early settlers came to America in the first place. The constitution does not prohibit religion in government, it simply prohibits government from discriminating against any religion. IMO, this works better with some people in office than others, but that is a separate argument (and after all, nothing is perfect). The actual document is quite clear, the lawyers muddy it up. Of course, they have a vested interest in it being muddy.

 

[chcr]

Separate issue:

I have not misinterpreted anything, so let me clarify: Educators may not teach, either as scientific fact or even as an alternative or competing theory, the theory that humankind was created by a divine being. In science classes, educators must present only scientific explanations for life on earth and scientific critiques of evolution...

No, what it says is that educators who teach evolution may not be compelled to teach creation as a competing theory. If they want to do so they are free to do so. If not, any other educator is free to do so. Words say what they say, regardless of anyone's attempts to twist the meaning.

But you know what? I've only been having this debate for 30 years or so. Whatever you say must be right.